David, are you sure that you are certain of who you are? Might you be mistaken? Perhaps you might find out some more ‘facts’ about youself in the near future which will lead to you discovering your own true identity.

How interesting that Herlock knows so much personal information. Could it be? We know Herlock isn't his real name. Hmmm. Your real name wouldn't have to be...? Nah.

David, David, you seem emotionally compelled to write these endless posts, this incessant barking. I first thought it was just a case of extreme confirmation bias (minimalizing and ignoring evidence to the contrary and overemphasizing (and misrepresenting) evidence to the affirmative), but now I believe it’s also your struggle with what psychologists call accommodation vs. assimilation. Although, Christopher Morley may have the answer to this incessant barking:

Truth, like milk, arrives in the dark
But even so, wise dogs don’t bar.
Only mongrels make it hard
For the milkman to come up the yard.

Truth be told, it looks like you’re upset that I discovered your hidden agenda and you’re now paraphrasing, minimalizing, and cherry picking my book to death and not giving the true picture. You certainly look like you’re out to get me. Evidence for this, readers, is that he has skipped the volumes of surprising finds just to create the impression of a bad book. Sounds vindictive.

How many times do I have to tell you, Reductionist Dave, that I’m not going to play your game. Your MO (i.e., what you did with Jonathan) is to offend an author on the boards enough so that they defend themselves and expose the gaps in your articles, present and future. You’ll then amend your online articles. It’s obvious as to your motive. Your online articles will be chapters in your future David Orsam Book. In view of this, I will illuminate you AFTER publication so that I can return the very same courtesy that you have given other authors on these boards. Don’t be afraid to publish, David. Have some guts. I will take the time out of my busy schedule and give you a thorough review.

Recall:

David Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook! Now I see what he’s doing. He seems to antagonize the author on the forums until the author is forced to defend his work. It creates a huge thread that no one bothers to read, so no one sees how Barratt’s arguments are an act of minimalizing evidence to the contrary. Barratt then fixes his online article through crafty smoke and mirrors. Sorry, David, I’m not going to play your game.

It is likely why you have not written your book (David Orsam books) yet, since you fear authors will give your book the same treatment. Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately. Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?

The problem the reader has is, since they are not privy to all the details, your strawman arguments sound convincing. It’s just that they are not valid. Even on this thread, we see Barratt’s minimalizing of the evidence. I’ll give two:

First one: Barratt paraphrases Littlechild’s statement in such a way as to make the reader believe he did not have inside knowledge that Tumblety had escaped to France. Barratt states, “It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!”

This is a lie. Littlechild actually stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England. Besides, he used an alias, Frank Townsend, so how on earth would they have known it was him?

Second one: Barratt minimalized the evidence for an English detective in New York watching Tumblety. Barratt states, “Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer".” First, note how Barratt minimalized the evidence into ONE bartender’s story. The bartender's story was actually bartenders' stories collected from competing New York newspaper reporters independently and on the same day. This is corroboration! These reporters saw the man too and neither could have picked up the other’s story. Evidence for this is that they have different facts. The following events were published in the New York World on 4 December 1888,

. . . It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. . . . He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective . . .
Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm . . .
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: 'He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.'

The World reporter’s impression of the man being an English detective corroborates the barkeeper’s comment that, “he says he wuz an English detective,” and the reporter witnessing the detective staking out Tumblety’s residence corroborates the barkeeper’s comments about him being interested in Tumblety. The barkeeper also brought up Tumblety’s name to the reporter, clearly evidence that he received the information from the detective. There is no reason to assume the barkeeper’s account of the English detective’s Whitechapel murder mission as the product of a barkeeper’s lie. Additional evidence confirming the veracity of the barkeeper’s statement comes from the second, separate eyewitness, a New York Herald reporter:

I found that the Doctor was pretty well known in the neighborhood. The bartenders in McKenna's saloon, at the corner of Tenth street and Fourth avenue, knew him well. And it was here that I discovered an English detective on the track of the suspect. This man wore a dark mustache and side whiskers, a tweed suit, a billycock hat and very thick walking boots. He was of medium height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion. He had been hanging around the place all day and had posted himself at a window which commanded No. 79. He made some inquiries about Dr. Tumblety of the bartenders, but gave no information about himself, although it appeared he did not know much about New York. It is uncertain whether he came over in the same ship with the suspect. (New York Herald, Dec 4, 1888)

There is even further corroboration from Cincinnati:

It has been known for some days past that the detectives have been quietly tracing the career in this city of Dr. Francis Tumblety, one of the suspects under surveillance by the English authorities, and who was recently followed across the ocean by Scotland Yard's men. From information which leaked out yesterday around police headquarters, the inquiries presented here are not so much in reference to Tumblety himself as to a companion who attracted almost as much attention as the doctor, both on account of oddity of character and the shadow-like persistence with which he followed his employer. The investigation in this city is understood to be under the direction of English officials now in New York, and based upon certain information they have forwarded by mail. One of the officers whom current reports connects with this local investigation is James Jackson, the well-known private detective . . . The officials at police headquarters declined to talk about the matter or to answer any questions bearing on this supposed discovery of 'Jack the Ripper's' identity. (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 14, 1888)

Now, does this sound like my point is supported by just one bartender as Barratt minimalized?

Sorry David, this is the last reveal I will give you (and I’m sure you will “edit” your article). I will not play into your hand and give you the other areas of your minimalization, but I will repost this every time you post.

How interesting that Herlock knows so much personal information. Could it be? We know Herlock isn't his real name. Hmmm. Your real name wouldn't have to be...? Nah.

Had you actually been reading the posts in this thread Mr Hawley, which it is quite apparent you are not doing, you would have seen that the "personal information" that you seem to think Herlock knows about me is entirely derived from my post #156.

Had you actually been reading the posts in this thread Mr Hawley, which it is quite apparent you are not doing, you would have seen that the "personal information" that you seem to think Herlock knows about me is entirely derived from my post #156.

Well just fancy that, you're not calling me "Pierre" any more. You ARE able to learn from mistakes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mklhawley

Truth be told, it looks like you’re upset that I discovered your hidden agenda

I'm really confused about this "hidden agenda", Mike. One day I'm supposed to be posting online articles about JTR related books, knowing that they contain mistakes of some sort, in order to induce their authors to point out my errors so that I can then amend my online articles and include the new information in my forthcoming imaginary book on Jack the Ripper. This is apparently what I'm trying to do even though in three years of trying not a single person about whose work I've written has yet to point a single mistake of any significance in any of my articles! It's obviously not going very well. And someone like Bruce Robinson, about whose book I wrote a very long article, full of much new research, doesn't even post here, so how was that ever going to work?

But then the next day I'm actually trying to antagonize these same authors into debating with me, for some unknown reason, and then posting endlessly until they are exhausted. However, that doesn't seem to be entirely consistent with my other hidden agenda because surely I don't want them to be exhausted, I want them to help me amend my articles and update my imaginary book. And, again, it just doesn't work with my article on Bruce Robinson's book. I remember doing a lot of research for that article but, as he doesn't post in this forum, and was thus impossible to antagonize into debating with me, what possible motive could I have had for doing that article?

So I'm having real difficulty in understanding what I'm up to.

Perhaps the truth is that I've read a few books relating to Jack the Ripper, noticed some errors, queried some things, done some research, and posted my conclusions for the benefit of the rest of the world - intelligent people interested in the subject of Jack the Ripper, and anyone who is writing books or articles on the subject - so that will not be deceived by what they read in those books and that the record is properly corrected. Have you considered that this might just be my "hidden agenda"?

How interesting that Herlock knows so much personal information. Could it be? We know Herlock isn't his real name. Hmmm. Your real name wouldn't have to be...? Nah.

I didnt know any of the ‘facts’ about David until i read your comments Mike. I know absolutely nothing about David apart from the fact that he’s written 2 books that ive read (which i recommend to you Mike.)

More than one poster on here knows my real name as i occaisionally post on the Forum under that name. And in case you think im part of a conspiracy you can speak to Steve (Elamarna) who has met me and will confirm that im neither Pierre or David (Orsam or Barrat .) And to be completely accurate the best you should be willing to say is that its ‘highly unlikely’ that my real name is Herlock Sholmes as you cant be certain of the fact

Or, I just know the game you're playing. Jonathan owned you on Casebook so you changed your online article to make it look like your arguments are valid. You know darn well you did it, so quit lying.

Are you actually back on that?

Firstly, Jonathan didn't "own" me. It's clear for anyone who looks at the debate to see this.

Secondly, I didn't change my online article ("A Bridge Too Far") at all. If you were to actually read that article you will see that it's very tightly argued. It would be almost impossible to change anything without affecting the entire argument.

Thirdly, the entire article was discussed openly with Jonathan on this forum. So how could I have changed anything so that it would not be noticed? I mean, for me to have changed something in response to what Jonathan said about my article would mean he has said something about my article which can no longer be found in it. This is simply not the case!

Fourthly, you've never provided a single example of what you think I've changed in that article. What are you saying has been changed?

Fifthly, Jonathan himself has never claimed, as far as I am aware, that I've changed anything in my article in response to his comments (although, as I've already pointed out, he stated that he was going to change the next edition of his book in response to my article and give me a credit!).

Sixthly, you originally claimed in this thread that the article had "vanished", which it hadn't. It's your own credibility that has vanished.

I didnt know any of the ‘facts’ about David until i read your comments Mike. I know absolutely nothing about David apart from the fact that he’s written 2 books that ive read (which i recommend to you Mike.)

More than one poster on here knows my real name as i occaisionally post on the Forum under that name. And in case you think im part of a conspiracy you can speak to Steve (Elamarna) who has met me and will confirm that im neither Pierre or David (Orsam or Barrat .) And to be completely accurate the best you should be willing to say is that its ‘highly unlikely’ that my real name is Herlock Sholmes as you cant be certain of the fact

Just to confirm i have met Herlock, we drank a few pints in the Ten Bells. He then went on a Richard Jones Tour. If memory serves right lead by John Bennett on that occasion.